Universal Access To All Knowledge
Home Donate | Store | Blog | FAQ | Jobs | Volunteer Positions | Contact | Bios | Forums | Projects | Terms, Privacy, & Copyright
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload

Reply to this post | See parent post | Go Back
View Post [edit]

Poster: kochman Date: Apr 10, 2009 2:23pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More about Jerry's tone: Strings

Bluedevil, you are clearly out of your mind... unbiased news? Like MSNBC? CNN?
Get out of here. I can't even believe you consider those to be unbiased, and FOXNEWS biased. All 3 of those are clearly biased. Did you miss the entire election season?

Anyhow, they are private organizations, so they can promote whatever they hell they want (and lose customers because of it, on BOTH sides).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: bluedevil Date: Apr 10, 2009 2:48pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More about Jerry's tone: Strings

in the spirt of civility - I deleted my original reply. life's too short

This post was modified by bluedevil on 2009-04-10 21:47:46

This post was modified by bluedevil on 2009-04-10 21:48:14

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Apr 10, 2009 4:24pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More about Jerry's tone: Strings

Damn! I missed it! What, are we trying NOT to annoy anyone? Reading the rules round here or somthin? Crap. Now I gotta start being careful...

Hey--Bynum is back, and though I worry it's too early, maybe my Lakers have a good shot this year...Just wish our DEADHEAD Walton would become CONSISTENT. Good kid though, regardless. "hustle" (your byword).

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Apr 10, 2009 2:44pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More about Jerry's tone: Strings

K-man: hey, I have no axe to grind, trust me, but as a scientist, and one that prides himself on objectivity, anyone that listens to any of these folks, adds them all up and then divides by their IQ, recognizes that the conservative folks are so far out ahead of the liberals in nasty talk it is amazing...seriously, I am largely apolitical, but the folks that spout "liberal media bias" are the same ones that say "universities turn our kids into atheists" (of course, the second follows, logically). If you just listen randomly to ten talk shows, add up the negatives against liberals vs the negatives against conservatives, it is amazing how biase it is against liberals.

I could care less, as the are ALL morons (Earl told me so), but facts are facts.

On another subject, I though of you and NC last night while reading a new analysis of the Germans (the same guy that did the myth of the great war; Moiser or some such). He certainly shoots down some of my dogma. I will keep an open mind.

Good to see you here abouts.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kochman Date: Apr 10, 2009 2:52pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More about Jerry's tone: Strings

Sure, radio talk shows are hugely biased toward conservatives.
Publications are hugely biased towards liberals.
TV is hugely biased towards liberals too, mainly because the people on TV tend to be liberal (remember, many of these people were in "drama" or other such classes when little).

I think it all evens out really. I don't listen to any of them anymore, including the politicians, because while everyone else may be biased, ALL the politicians ARE liars.

I just found it amazing that someone could honestly make a statement that only FOXNEWS is biased. I don't watch any of those channels. Nor do I vote anymore, I completely dropped out of politics, and being unable to find unbiased sources was a huge reason why.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Apr 10, 2009 3:26pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More about Jerry's tone: Strings

I hear ya, I hear ya! So, this fellow makes some very interesting statistical analyses, one of which is that the Germans were so good (something I think we both agree on) because of the disproportionate number of lower level officers (per grunt ranks) relative to French, Brit and US armies, and that was the primary factor in their succes (ie, tactical supremcy, etc., etc.; which again, we probably agree on). But, he also takes on any number of "myths" that have been accepted over the years for both WWI and WWII, some of which I buy into (ie, the debunking aspect--eg, that the allies suffered much greater mortality rates in WWI compared to the Germans, who just weren't as stupid as we were), but also, that the ruskies "won the war" as I was maintaining when we last crossed swords hereabouts...will see how he presents his case.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: kochman Date: Apr 10, 2009 4:55pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More about Jerry's tone: Strings

I think another reason the german army was so good is that it promoted based on experience and skill, rather than just social class (something the other armies hadn't gotten too as well, the US being the closest example). A good, young sergeant became a lieutenant.

This was pretty damn important... that and the germans WERE just naturally militaristic.

Of course, two world wars took most of the fight out of their gene pool.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: William Tell Date: Apr 10, 2009 7:16pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More about Jerry's tone: Strings

You're right on; he outlines this quite well--it was a cultural position to aspire to, and they had multiple "west points", etc., etc.

So, they ended up having many well educated folks pursuing it, working into the officer ranks, etc.

Reply to this post
Reply [edit]

Poster: Styrofoam Cueball Date: Apr 10, 2009 3:47pm
Forum: GratefulDead Subject: Re: More about Jerry's tone: Strings

Hey, My Grand-Dad fought in WW1...for the Germans. So I agree with what Tell is saying, of course. ;)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)